Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Final AP poll for the season: Bama, UGA, OU, Clemson, tOSU, UCF
Author Message
Attackcoog Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,310
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 886
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #31
RE: Final AP poll for the season: Bama, UGA, OU, Clemson, tOSU, UCF
(01-09-2018 02:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 01:30 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 10:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  It's instructive that even with the "Big Win" over 3-loss Auburn, UCF still wouldn't make a 4-team playoff if decided by the final AP poll.

Exactly. A G5 is not going to be allowed in the playoff. This talk that the Georgia Tech game would have made a difference is really silly. So I am to believe that beating a 5-6 Georgia Tech would tell the Committee something that beating a 4-8 Maryland didnt? That game would have made zero difference. This Committee was never going to put a G5 in the top 10--much less the top 4.

That said, I think UCF did the G5 a favor. They gave the committee a black eye. They exposed the bias.

Um .... how did UCF give the committee a "black eye" and "exposed their bias" when every other outlet had UCF outside of the top 10 as well? Humans and computers (see Sagarin and MC) all agree - even AFTER the Big Win over Auburn, UCF still isn't a top 4 team!

You have made a big point about the composition of the CFP committee as being biased against the G5. But the AP vote just drives the point home that *any* committee, unless literally chaired by Aresco and consisting of 10 AAC AD's, would have kept UCF out too.

UCF fans have had fun the past week posting links to sports columns and blogs saying that "UCF deserves to hang their banner" and the like, but in the end, the sportswriters voted 57 to 4 for Alabama over UCF, and put UCF at #6.

So this hardly constitutes an indictment of the CFP, eh?

We've gone over this 100 times. The Selection Committee has complete power in determining the CFP. The CFP methodology has signficantly influeced the AP/Coaches polls. Those major non-CFP polls have drastically changed their nature since the start of the CFP era. Rather than being objective opinions of the individual team rankings---these poll voters have instead attempted to predict the Tuesday CFP polls by mirroring the CFP Committee methodology. In fact, you only see a real independent opinions in the AP/Coaches prior to the CFP rankings. Despite the influence, the polls STILL generally rank G5's higher than the Selection committee. My guess is---if you did a double blind test where the AP/Coaches voters never were allowed to know the CFPSC picks---there would be HUGE differences in the polling.

My favorite example---in 2011, an undefeated 12-0 UH team with a resume similar to UCF's (in fact, it was probably worse than UCFs resume) was sitting at #6 the week prior to the CUSA championship game. The only difference between now and then is the influence of the CFP Selection Committee.
(This post was last modified: 01-09-2018 02:46 PM by Attackcoog.)
01-09-2018 02:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,640
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 541
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #32
RE: Final AP poll for the season: Bama, UGA, OU, Clemson, tOSU, UCF
(01-09-2018 02:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 02:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 01:30 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 10:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  It's instructive that even with the "Big Win" over 3-loss Auburn, UCF still wouldn't make a 4-team playoff if decided by the final AP poll.

Exactly. A G5 is not going to be allowed in the playoff. This talk that the Georgia Tech game would have made a difference is really silly. So I am to believe that beating a 5-6 Georgia Tech would tell the Committee something that beating a 4-8 Maryland didnt? That game would have made zero difference. This Committee was never going to put a G5 in the top 10--much less the top 4.

That said, I think UCF did the G5 a favor. They gave the committee a black eye. They exposed the bias.

Um .... how did UCF give the committee a "black eye" and "exposed their bias" when every other outlet had UCF outside of the top 10 as well? Humans and computers (see Sagarin and MC) all agree - even AFTER the Big Win over Auburn, UCF still isn't a top 4 team!

You have made a big point about the composition of the CFP committee as being biased against the G5. But the AP vote just drives the point home that *any* committee, unless literally chaired by Aresco and consisting of 10 AAC AD's, would have kept UCF out too.

UCF fans have had fun the past week posting links to sports columns and blogs saying that "UCF deserves to hang their banner" and the like, but in the end, the sportswriters voted 57 to 4 for Alabama over UCF, and put UCF at #6.

So this hardly constitutes an indictment of the CFP, eh?

We've gone over this 100 times. The Selection Committee has complete power in determining the CFP. The CFP methodology has signficantly influeced the AP/Coaches polls. Those non-CFP have drastically changed thier nature since the CFP. Rather than being object opinions of the rankings---the voters have instead ...

Obvious problem with this is that the final AP poll clearly had zero to do with the CFP committee rankings.
01-09-2018 02:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,310
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 886
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #33
RE: Final AP poll for the season: Bama, UGA, OU, Clemson, tOSU, UCF
(01-09-2018 02:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 02:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 02:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 01:30 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 10:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  It's instructive that even with the "Big Win" over 3-loss Auburn, UCF still wouldn't make a 4-team playoff if decided by the final AP poll.

Exactly. A G5 is not going to be allowed in the playoff. This talk that the Georgia Tech game would have made a difference is really silly. So I am to believe that beating a 5-6 Georgia Tech would tell the Committee something that beating a 4-8 Maryland didnt? That game would have made zero difference. This Committee was never going to put a G5 in the top 10--much less the top 4.

That said, I think UCF did the G5 a favor. They gave the committee a black eye. They exposed the bias.

Um .... how did UCF give the committee a "black eye" and "exposed their bias" when every other outlet had UCF outside of the top 10 as well? Humans and computers (see Sagarin and MC) all agree - even AFTER the Big Win over Auburn, UCF still isn't a top 4 team!

You have made a big point about the composition of the CFP committee as being biased against the G5. But the AP vote just drives the point home that *any* committee, unless literally chaired by Aresco and consisting of 10 AAC AD's, would have kept UCF out too.

UCF fans have had fun the past week posting links to sports columns and blogs saying that "UCF deserves to hang their banner" and the like, but in the end, the sportswriters voted 57 to 4 for Alabama over UCF, and put UCF at #6.

So this hardly constitutes an indictment of the CFP, eh?

We've gone over this 100 times. The Selection Committee has complete power in determining the CFP. The CFP methodology has signficantly influeced the AP/Coaches polls. Those non-CFP have drastically changed thier nature since the CFP. Rather than being object opinions of the rankings---the voters have instead ...

Obvious problem with this is that the final AP poll clearly had zero to do with the CFP committee rankings.

Then explain the massive difference in G5 treatment in pre-CFP poll treatment of G5s and post-CFP poll treatment of G5's. The Committee bias has influenced poll voters. They know that the Committee will never vote a G5 in the top ten, so they dont put them in the top ten. They want thier ballot to be generally predictive of the Committee--not totally different.

The good news is the Committee jumped the shark this year. The CFP will not want a repeat black eye, I think the next time the AAC has an undefeated champion, they will be in the top 10 of the CFP ranking. The Committee learned that public acceptance of their arrogant dismissive attitude toward the G5 does have a limit.
(This post was last modified: 01-09-2018 02:56 PM by Attackcoog.)
01-09-2018 02:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CheckYosef94 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 173
Joined: Nov 2014
Reputation: 8
I Root For: App State
Location:
Post: #34
RE: Final AP poll for the season: Bama, UGA, OU, Clemson, tOSU, UCF
I understand that in order to not admit the system is flawed they have to put the 4 teams that played in the playoff in the top 4. But how are you going to put UCF at 6? Shouldn't they at least be 5? There is only one team that beat both Alabama and Georgia and that is Auburn. Who then went and got beat by an undefeated UCF team.
01-09-2018 03:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,092
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 308
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #35
RE: Final AP poll for the season: Bama, UGA, OU, Clemson, tOSU, UCF
(01-09-2018 02:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 02:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 01:30 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 10:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  It's instructive that even with the "Big Win" over 3-loss Auburn, UCF still wouldn't make a 4-team playoff if decided by the final AP poll.

Exactly. A G5 is not going to be allowed in the playoff. This talk that the Georgia Tech game would have made a difference is really silly. So I am to believe that beating a 5-6 Georgia Tech would tell the Committee something that beating a 4-8 Maryland didnt? That game would have made zero difference. This Committee was never going to put a G5 in the top 10--much less the top 4.

That said, I think UCF did the G5 a favor. They gave the committee a black eye. They exposed the bias.

Um .... how did UCF give the committee a "black eye" and "exposed their bias" when every other outlet had UCF outside of the top 10 as well? Humans and computers (see Sagarin and MC) all agree - even AFTER the Big Win over Auburn, UCF still isn't a top 4 team!

You have made a big point about the composition of the CFP committee as being biased against the G5. But the AP vote just drives the point home that *any* committee, unless literally chaired by Aresco and consisting of 10 AAC AD's, would have kept UCF out too.

UCF fans have had fun the past week posting links to sports columns and blogs saying that "UCF deserves to hang their banner" and the like, but in the end, the sportswriters voted 57 to 4 for Alabama over UCF, and put UCF at #6.

So this hardly constitutes an indictment of the CFP, eh?

We've gone over this 100 times. The Selection Committee has complete power in determining the CFP. The CFP methodology has signficantly influeced the AP/Coaches polls. Those major non-CFP polls have drastically changed their nature since the start of the CFP era. Rather than being objective opinions of the individual team rankings---these poll voters have instead attempted to predict the Tuesday CFP polls by mirroring the CFP Committee methodology. In fact, you only see a real independent opinions in the AP/Coaches prior to the CFP rankings. Despite the influence, the polls STILL generally rank G5's higher than the Selection committee. My guess is---if you did a double blind test where the AP/Coaches voters never were allowed to know the CFPSC picks---there would be HUGE differences in the polling.

My favorite example---in 2011, an undefeated 12-0 UH team with a resume similar to UCF's (in fact, it was probably worse than UCFs resume) was sitting at #6 the week prior to the CUSA championship game. The only difference between now and then is the influence of the CFP Selection Committee.

Are you suggesting that AP poll voters are forming committees to discuss the relative strength of the top teams, and then casting their votes accordingly? Of course they aren't doing that. Instead, they are doing what they have always done.

The notion that the CFP has significantly influenced the AP/Coaches Polls is, to use the technical term, buswha. There has been one change over the years which probably affects all pollsters and committees. The are a gazillion more opportunities to watch all the good teams, and they are playing other good teams more often than they used to. If they all have access to the same info, they are probably going to come up with very similar conclusions - whether there are 13 members of a committee or 60+ voters in a poll.

One reason I can think of that would explain why there are more G5s in the polls is that poll voters don't take their votes beyond the #15 team as seriously as they do the top teams. Did you ever consider it is the poll voters who are biased in favor of the little guy?
01-09-2018 03:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
leofrog Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 133
Joined: May 2005
Reputation: 7
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #36
RE: Final AP poll for the season: Bama, UGA, OU, Clemson, tOSU, UCF
(01-09-2018 02:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 01:30 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 10:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  It's instructive that even with the "Big Win" over 3-loss Auburn, UCF still wouldn't make a 4-team playoff if decided by the final AP poll.

Exactly. A G5 is not going to be allowed in the playoff. This talk that the Georgia Tech game would have made a difference is really silly. So I am to believe that beating a 5-6 Georgia Tech would tell the Committee something that beating a 4-8 Maryland didnt? That game would have made zero difference. This Committee was never going to put a G5 in the top 10--much less the top 4.

That said, I think UCF did the G5 a favor. They gave the committee a black eye. They exposed the bias.

Um .... how did UCF give the committee a "black eye" and "exposed their bias" when every other outlet had UCF outside of the top 10 as well? Humans and computers (see Sagarin and MC) all agree - even AFTER the Big Win over Auburn, UCF still isn't a top 4 team!

You have made a big point about the composition of the CFP committee as being biased against the G5. But the AP vote just drives the point home that *any* committee, unless literally chaired by Aresco and consisting of 10 AAC AD's, would have kept UCF out too.

UCF fans have had fun the past week posting links to sports columns and blogs saying that "UCF deserves to hang their banner" and the like, but in the end, the sportswriters voted 57 to 4 for Alabama over UCF, and put UCF at #6.

So this hardly constitutes an indictment of the CFP, eh?

(01-09-2018 02:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 02:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 02:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 01:30 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 10:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  It's instructive that even with the "Big Win" over 3-loss Auburn, UCF still wouldn't make a 4-team playoff if decided by the final AP poll.

Exactly. A G5 is not going to be allowed in the playoff. This talk that the Georgia Tech game would have made a difference is really silly. So I am to believe that beating a 5-6 Georgia Tech would tell the Committee something that beating a 4-8 Maryland didnt? That game would have made zero difference. This Committee was never going to put a G5 in the top 10--much less the top 4.

That said, I think UCF did the G5 a favor. They gave the committee a black eye. They exposed the bias.

Um .... how did UCF give the committee a "black eye" and "exposed their bias" when every other outlet had UCF outside of the top 10 as well? Humans and computers (see Sagarin and MC) all agree - even AFTER the Big Win over Auburn, UCF still isn't a top 4 team!

You have made a big point about the composition of the CFP committee as being biased against the G5. But the AP vote just drives the point home that *any* committee, unless literally chaired by Aresco and consisting of 10 AAC AD's, would have kept UCF out too.

UCF fans have had fun the past week posting links to sports columns and blogs saying that "UCF deserves to hang their banner" and the like, but in the end, the sportswriters voted 57 to 4 for Alabama over UCF, and put UCF at #6.

So this hardly constitutes an indictment of the CFP, eh?

We've gone over this 100 times. The Selection Committee has complete power in determining the CFP. The CFP methodology has signficantly influeced the AP/Coaches polls. Those non-CFP have drastically changed thier nature since the CFP. Rather than being object opinions of the rankings---the voters have instead ...

Obvious problem with this is that the final AP poll clearly had zero to do with the CFP committee rankings.
Totally agree. I was about to say the same thing. Where's the CFP bias now?
01-09-2018 03:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,092
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 308
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #37
RE: Final AP poll for the season: Bama, UGA, OU, Clemson, tOSU, UCF
(01-09-2018 02:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 02:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 02:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 02:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 01:30 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Exactly. A G5 is not going to be allowed in the playoff. This talk that the Georgia Tech game would have made a difference is really silly. So I am to believe that beating a 5-6 Georgia Tech would tell the Committee something that beating a 4-8 Maryland didnt? That game would have made zero difference. This Committee was never going to put a G5 in the top 10--much less the top 4.

That said, I think UCF did the G5 a favor. They gave the committee a black eye. They exposed the bias.

Um .... how did UCF give the committee a "black eye" and "exposed their bias" when every other outlet had UCF outside of the top 10 as well? Humans and computers (see Sagarin and MC) all agree - even AFTER the Big Win over Auburn, UCF still isn't a top 4 team!

You have made a big point about the composition of the CFP committee as being biased against the G5. But the AP vote just drives the point home that *any* committee, unless literally chaired by Aresco and consisting of 10 AAC AD's, would have kept UCF out too.

UCF fans have had fun the past week posting links to sports columns and blogs saying that "UCF deserves to hang their banner" and the like, but in the end, the sportswriters voted 57 to 4 for Alabama over UCF, and put UCF at #6.

So this hardly constitutes an indictment of the CFP, eh?

We've gone over this 100 times. The Selection Committee has complete power in determining the CFP. The CFP methodology has signficantly influeced the AP/Coaches polls. Those non-CFP have drastically changed thier nature since the CFP. Rather than being object opinions of the rankings---the voters have instead ...

Obvious problem with this is that the final AP poll clearly had zero to do with the CFP committee rankings.

Then explain the massive difference in G5 treatment in pre-CFP poll treatment of G5s and post-CFP poll treatment of G5's. The Committee bias has influenced poll voters. They know that the Committee will never vote a G5 in the top ten, so they dont put them in the top ten. They want thier ballot to be generally predictive of the Committee--not totally different.

The good news is the Committee jumped the shark this year. The CFP will not want a repeat black eye, I think the next time the AAC has an undefeated champion, they will be in the top 10 of the CFP ranking. The Committee learned that public acceptance of their arrogant dismissive attitude toward the G5 does have a limit.

What "massive difference" would that be? Over the years, the polls have typically averaged roughly 3 G5 teams in their top 25, and some years had none. Most of those teams were ranked below #15. I didn't bother to look before 2016, but that's pretty much what the CFP rankings had each of the past two years.

Just because you make your claims of bias boldly and with great confidence, that doesn't make them credible. Claims like "They know that the Committee will never vote a G5 in the top ten, so they don't put them in the top ten" are completely baseless. That's just your opinion in all caps.
01-09-2018 03:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,310
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 886
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #38
RE: Final AP poll for the season: Bama, UGA, OU, Clemson, tOSU, UCF
(01-09-2018 03:11 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 02:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 02:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 01:30 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 10:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  It's instructive that even with the "Big Win" over 3-loss Auburn, UCF still wouldn't make a 4-team playoff if decided by the final AP poll.

Exactly. A G5 is not going to be allowed in the playoff. This talk that the Georgia Tech game would have made a difference is really silly. So I am to believe that beating a 5-6 Georgia Tech would tell the Committee something that beating a 4-8 Maryland didnt? That game would have made zero difference. This Committee was never going to put a G5 in the top 10--much less the top 4.

That said, I think UCF did the G5 a favor. They gave the committee a black eye. They exposed the bias.

Um .... how did UCF give the committee a "black eye" and "exposed their bias" when every other outlet had UCF outside of the top 10 as well? Humans and computers (see Sagarin and MC) all agree - even AFTER the Big Win over Auburn, UCF still isn't a top 4 team!

You have made a big point about the composition of the CFP committee as being biased against the G5. But the AP vote just drives the point home that *any* committee, unless literally chaired by Aresco and consisting of 10 AAC AD's, would have kept UCF out too.

UCF fans have had fun the past week posting links to sports columns and blogs saying that "UCF deserves to hang their banner" and the like, but in the end, the sportswriters voted 57 to 4 for Alabama over UCF, and put UCF at #6.

So this hardly constitutes an indictment of the CFP, eh?

We've gone over this 100 times. The Selection Committee has complete power in determining the CFP. The CFP methodology has signficantly influeced the AP/Coaches polls. Those major non-CFP polls have drastically changed their nature since the start of the CFP era. Rather than being objective opinions of the individual team rankings---these poll voters have instead attempted to predict the Tuesday CFP polls by mirroring the CFP Committee methodology. In fact, you only see a real independent opinions in the AP/Coaches prior to the CFP rankings. Despite the influence, the polls STILL generally rank G5's higher than the Selection committee. My guess is---if you did a double blind test where the AP/Coaches voters never were allowed to know the CFPSC picks---there would be HUGE differences in the polling.

My favorite example---in 2011, an undefeated 12-0 UH team with a resume similar to UCF's (in fact, it was probably worse than UCFs resume) was sitting at #6 the week prior to the CUSA championship game. The only difference between now and then is the influence of the CFP Selection Committee.

Are you suggesting that AP poll voters are forming committees to discuss the relative strength of the top teams, and then casting their votes accordingly? Of course they aren't doing that. Instead, they are doing what they have always done.

The notion that the CFP has significantly influenced the AP/Coaches Polls is, to use the technical term, buswha. There has been one change over the years which probably affects all pollsters and committees. The are a gazillion more opportunities to watch all the good teams, and they are playing other good teams more often than they used to. If they all have access to the same info, they are probably going to come up with very similar conclusions - whether there are 13 members of a committee or 60+ voters in a poll.

One reason I can think of that would explain why there are more G5s in the polls is that poll voters don't take their votes beyond the #15 team as seriously as they do the top teams. Did you ever consider it is the poll voters who are biased in favor of the little guy?

Are you suggesting that the reason for the change in how G5' are treated since 2011 is becasue in 2011 P5 conferences were rarely on TV??? LOL. Talk about "Buwsha".

No. Im not suggesting there are meetings to coordinate. I never said such a thing--but nice straw man. What I said was the CFP is TOTALLY controlled by the CFP Selection Committee. The Selection Committee voting methodology is all that really matters in the post CFP era--so the way the other polls now view teams has been influenced by the CFP Selection Committee prizm. Essentially, the voters are less giving an opinion on where they think teams should rank---than they are giving an opinion on where they think the Selection Committee WILL rank the teams.
(This post was last modified: 01-09-2018 04:21 PM by Attackcoog.)
01-09-2018 04:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,310
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 886
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #39
RE: Final AP poll for the season: Bama, UGA, OU, Clemson, tOSU, UCF
(01-09-2018 03:59 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 02:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 02:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 02:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 02:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Um .... how did UCF give the committee a "black eye" and "exposed their bias" when every other outlet had UCF outside of the top 10 as well? Humans and computers (see Sagarin and MC) all agree - even AFTER the Big Win over Auburn, UCF still isn't a top 4 team!

You have made a big point about the composition of the CFP committee as being biased against the G5. But the AP vote just drives the point home that *any* committee, unless literally chaired by Aresco and consisting of 10 AAC AD's, would have kept UCF out too.

UCF fans have had fun the past week posting links to sports columns and blogs saying that "UCF deserves to hang their banner" and the like, but in the end, the sportswriters voted 57 to 4 for Alabama over UCF, and put UCF at #6.

So this hardly constitutes an indictment of the CFP, eh?

We've gone over this 100 times. The Selection Committee has complete power in determining the CFP. The CFP methodology has signficantly influeced the AP/Coaches polls. Those non-CFP have drastically changed thier nature since the CFP. Rather than being object opinions of the rankings---the voters have instead ...

Obvious problem with this is that the final AP poll clearly had zero to do with the CFP committee rankings.

Then explain the massive difference in G5 treatment in pre-CFP poll treatment of G5s and post-CFP poll treatment of G5's. The Committee bias has influenced poll voters. They know that the Committee will never vote a G5 in the top ten, so they dont put them in the top ten. They want thier ballot to be generally predictive of the Committee--not totally different.

The good news is the Committee jumped the shark this year. The CFP will not want a repeat black eye, I think the next time the AAC has an undefeated champion, they will be in the top 10 of the CFP ranking. The Committee learned that public acceptance of their arrogant dismissive attitude toward the G5 does have a limit.

What "massive difference" would that be? Over the years, the polls have typically averaged roughly 3 G5 teams in their top 25, and some years had none. Most of those teams were ranked below #15. I didn't bother to look before 2016, but that's pretty much what the CFP rankings had each of the past two years.

Just because you make your claims of bias boldly and with great confidence, that doesn't make them credible. Claims like "They know that the Committee will never vote a G5 in the top ten, so they don't put them in the top ten" are completely baseless. That's just your opinion in all caps.

How can a statement be baseless when the historical facts support it? How many G5 teams have been placed in the top 10 over the the first 4 years of existance. How many G5 teams have been in the top 10 prior to the CFP? The fact is, I actually think the next undefeated AAC champion will be in the CFP top ten--but that is only because the committee essentially embarrassed the CFP with its extreme level of bias this year. The level of G5 disrespect inside the room will not change, but after this years embarrassing public backlash, they wont overplay their hand as openly as they did this year. They will throw the next undefeated AAC champ a bone and place them at 9 or 10.
(This post was last modified: 01-09-2018 04:30 PM by Attackcoog.)
01-09-2018 04:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 12,785
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 393
I Root For: California
Location: Bear Territory
Post: #40
RE: Final AP poll for the season: Bama, UGA, OU, Clemson, tOSU, UCF
The polls are more favorable to the best teams from "non-power" conferences than they used to be. You can see that in the long list I posted earlier in this thread. Toledo was undefeated and untied in two consecutive seasons and got little respect from the poll voters; they never cracked the top 10 and were ranked behind 3-loss teams in both of those seasons. Miami-Ohio had two consecutive undefeated seasons, with a tie in each, followed by an 11-1 season. A 3-year stretch in which they only lost a total of one game, and the best the poll voters gave them for it was one week in one season ranked #10. They were also ranked behind 3-loss teams in the final poll of each of those three seasons.
01-09-2018 04:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.